Talk:CategoryOfMarineProtectedArea
jens 13:43, 10 January 2009 (CET)
Did some layout and presentation improvements.
Is it possible to have more than one entry applies to one area? If yes the attribute type has to be changed to "L". It offers more flexibility.
Having two or more categories for the same area but regulations apply for only one then the information has to be split up into more than one entry. In any case "L" type could be a better choice.
--Cwinn72 13:36, 27 January 2009 (CET)
I believe that once an area is classified as a category, it is only that category. I will check on this.
DavidAcland 15:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Rechecked with URL: http://www.unep-wcmc.org/protected_areas/categories/eng/index.html and made further presentational improvements.
raphael 19:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC): Can we change the camel case name of this attribute to categoryOfIUCN? Since "IUCN" is the abbreviation for an organization and is given in full in the definitions, I think we do not need to spell it out in full in the Camel Case name.
The full name "categoryOfInternationalUnionForConservationOfNatureAndNaturalResources" is 70 characters long. It makes some blocks in UML diagrams uncommonly large, which in turn leads to diagrams that are more difficult to draw and understand.
If S-100 says abbreviations must be spelled out, we should point this one out to TSMAD as a case for allowing exceptions to the rule.
DavidAcland 20:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
I have full sympathy with this request. We went round this buoy two or three years ago and are now stictly compliant - not with S-100 so much as ISO I think. However there is a limit. I will shorten it to something handier and raise it.
DavidAcland 13:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC) For later definitons, which do not yet appear to be approved see: http://data.iucn.org/dbtw-wpd/edocs/PAPS-016.pdf However this needs watching and we may have to update our definitions if approval is obtained for the new ones.
raphael (talk) 17:01, 19 January 2017 (CET): Summary of feedback and recent discussions:
- The IUCN categories are pretty terrible as well - the categories were originally developed for land-based conservation areas and they tried to do a 'translation' to nautical equivalents rather than start fresh. The result is the IUCN categories also don't really reflect the level of rules/restrictions but are more about the 'motivation/goals' and what an area is called (reserve vs park vs ...) for an area and very arbitrary decisions on what category to apply. US (NOAA) wants to look at the restricted activities instead.
- Japanese MPA areas follow national categories and that there would be difficulties to assign all areas to one of the IUCN categories.
- Either extend the CATIUC values by a further value called “national marine protected area” or add a new simple string attribute “national marine protected area”.
- There would be the temptation to make it an endless list with each Nation adding their national MPA. Do we really need such an endless list (codelist)?
- If such a list is introduced, why should CATIUC be retained? It could be integrated in that code list. (And the name “national protected area” should be amended to “category of marine protected area”.)
- One option could be to make CATIUC optional.
- The tricky things about about using code list:
- You may want to drive portrayal by the attribute, in which case any item that is added to the list will just display generically.
- If someone wishes to utilize the data in other systems or as input to another dataset, then also the additional items will be tricky to handle.
- With open code list, there is always the temptation for encoders to just add their own item all the time as they don't have to stick to the available items.
- To mitigate these issues, we can use an enumerated list and amalgamate the IUCN codes with the input from US and Japan, and hope there aren't many new types of MPA that keep showing up.
- It might be helpful to ask what functionality is enabled by a particular categorization. For example, do we expect a textual presentation to group areas by category, or a graphical presentation to symbolize different categories differently, or an ECDIS/ECS/INS to raise alerts, or voyage planning software to use the categories in some way?
- We are already discussing the ACTION attribute in the context of RXNCOD, and S-101 already defines attributes categoryOfRestrictedArea and restriction. We should take care not to model the same concept in multiple parts of the application schema.
jens (talk) 09:46, 23 January 2017 (CET) So, my suggestion is to rename the attribute to “category of marine protected area”, keep the original list as first values and await requests to extend the list. That seems to cover al concerns and it provides the intended flexibility.
raphael (talk) 18:20, 23 January 2017 (CET): I agree with renaming. Can tentatively use the IUCN list as the listed values. Any views on whether it should be an 'open enumeration codelist' or a plain enumeration attribute?
We should also stress in the DCEG (in all NPUB DCEGs) that the fact that an S100_Codelist type allows 'extra values' is not license for encoders to make up values all the time.
raphael (talk) 03:40, 2 February 2017 (CET): Definition needed, especially if it is renamed to 'category of marine protected area'. The registry currently has only 'Category of IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources)'.
Proposed definition: Classification of marine protected areas based on IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources) categories.
If we change the basis of the classification, the definition should be updated accordingly.
raphael (talk) 03:12, 14 July 2017 (CEST): Since this is now a codelist and can take other values as well, the definition should be updated slightly:
Proposed definition: Classification of marine protected areas based on the IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources) or another system.